Author
Topic: Canon 650D - sensor size? (Read 33502 times)

Astro

But if you're implying that the people who see Nikon's 24mp body as a threat to Canon's entry dlsr line cannot tell mp from noise or dynamic range, I'm pressed to say that imho that's very near trolling.

well go out in a shop and ask someone who buys a D3200 (or a1100D, 600D) what noise or DR means .. you will be suprised by their puzzled faces.

forums like this one are no mirror of the majority of customers.

even with worse IQ more MP sell. you just have to look a P&S cameras.that does not mean the D3200 has bad IQ.. it´s a general observation.

i don´t say the D3200 is no competition, it sure is, but the conclusion the TO draws are somwhat unrealistic....

well go out in a shop and ask someone who buys a D3200 (or a1100D, 600D) what noise or DR means .. you will be suprised by their puzzled faces.

That would be indeed interesting - because my personal observation is different, but maybe that's a coincidence or a statistical bias because of the kind of people around me.

I think your average customer does know that more mp mean potential drawbacks, because the question is so obvious why a mobile phone has the same mp count as a dslr! But they seem to think that noise is the only problem, not dynamic range too. And they are partially correct, because most shots have a low dr.

Many customers may even be mistaken in the other direction, thinking that an older camera with "bigger pixels" is better than the fanciest new d3200.

Those who get a camera because they have no clue at all will get a (mirrorless) system camera these days because they won't want to change lenses and want a super zoom, candy colors and maybe high mp. They'll only get a dlsr unless a salesman talks them into it.

Astro

well go out in a shop and ask someone who buys a D3200 (or a1100D, 600D) what noise or DR means .. you will be suprised by their puzzled faces.

That would be indeed interesting - because my personal observation is different, but maybe that's a coincidence or a statistical bias because of the kind of people around me.

of course.

during my studying times i worked at a two big european resellers (media markt and saturn) in the photo department.i think most of the customers i had did not even know what aperture actually means, not to mention the influence it has on DOF.

something like noise or dynamic range? well that´s something i had to tell them about.

and nearly all of them asked me soon or later if the camera with the "more megapixel" is not the better camera.

What Canon needs is a new APS-C sensor with lower noise (especially at low to medium ISO) and higher dynamic range. I don't care how they achieve it and how many megapixels it will have, as long as they get the image quality right.

well go out in a shop and ask someone who buys a D3200 (or a1100D, 600D) what noise or DR means .. you will be suprised by their puzzled faces.

That would be indeed interesting - because my personal observation is different, but maybe that's a coincidence or a statistical bias because of the kind of people around me.

of course.

during my studying times i worked at a two big european resellers (media markt and saturn) in the photo department.i think most of the customers i had did not even know what aperture actually means, not to mention the influence it has on DOF.

something like noise or dynamic range? well that´s something i had to tell them about.

and nearly all of them asked me soon or later if the camera with the "more megapixel" is not the better camera.

I have to agree with Astro on this one.

I see day in and day out people that will purchase a higher MP camera because the marketing departments of the world have brainwashed them to believe that higher MP = Better shots.In reality we all know that More Practice = Better shots.

In reality the rebel segment of the market is a difficult one to pick. These people are just out of the xxD price bracket (usually) but at the same time refuse to spend money on an xxxxD camera because they know its the base model, even though they have bugger all experience.

Tech specs wise Canon could keep the camera at 18MP, with an all new sensor design that is carried over into the new xxD when it comes out. At the same time they can pitch some other factor of the camera as being the whiz bang feature, be that an all new articulated screen like on the 600D or improved video capabilities.

End of the day most of us that read these types forums are at the xD or xxD level (or think we are), the xxxD cameras are more of a hobby camera or us to throw into a backpack and not worry about getting damaged.

Side note: birtembuk - 7DC....really?? You will be lucky to see a 7D2. Im guessing that it will be bumped down to a 70D sooner rather than later. Leaving the xD series as all Full Frame cameras only.

Logged

Yes, i shoot video on a DSLR.

ctmike

If the 650D/T4i comes out with a variant of the existing 18MP sensor.... then Nikon is going to sell a boatload of D3200's. Have to tip your cap to them, they have put out an extremely capable shooter at the $699 price point. The next 650D has to at least match this value proposition.

You will be lucky to see a 7D2. Im guessing that it will be bumped down to a 70D sooner rather than later. Leaving the xD series as all Full Frame cameras only.

And what sense would that make? The 7D is a very successful camera (and while Canon doesn't provide numbers, I wouldn't be surprised if Canon sold more 7Ds than 1-series and 5-series cameras combined). It is widely used by professionals who simply need the added tele range.

I know it hurts some tech-nerd's feelings that Canon positioned a camera with a "lesser" sensor in their professional lineup but apart from that, I see no argument against it. Quite the opposite: Given the huge price gap between the 60D and the 5D Mark III (as well as the growing competition), I guess that the 7D2 will move even more into "pro" territory than the original. All in all it will probably still be an evolutionary upgrade, though (I'm not expecting any revolutions from Canon at this point).

My guess is that the 7D Mark II will be based on the 5D Mark III body, but with an APS-C sensor and an integrated flash commander (aka popup flash). Going that route would save them a lot of R&D costs and pro users would appreciate having similar controls and button layouts on both cameras. The elephant in the room is the sensor, though: Noise at low/medium ISOs and low dynamic range (especially in the shadow areas) are the main problems of the original 7D and I really hope they adress them.

I really don't see any reason that the 650D wouldn't bump the sensor size up now, to say 22-24mpx, share that sensor with the 70D, then leapfrog the 7DII to something higher, say 25-28mpx, migrating the 700D & 80D up 12-18 months later along with the 1200D using the current 18mpx crop.

Although on current form, we might see the next crop sensor back to 15mpx ;-)

Just seen the D3200 (24Mp) 100% crop sample image on Nikon Rumours.Ultra smooth - very impressive!If the 650D comes out with say 20Mp on board it will be bad for Canon and they will have an uphill job convincing anyone new to DSLR photography to choose their brand!!When you need 100% size images the more Mp the better.

I have to ask what lens was used for that sample image. I imagine it was one of Nikon's better lenses. Put a consumer grade lens on that camera and see what you get.

during my studying times i worked at a two big european resellers (media markt and saturn) in the photo department.

Ok, if you really have first hand experience I take it from you and stand corrected. Still hard to believe why people wouldn't ask "if my mobile phone has 16mp, what's so great about a 18mp dslr?". But then again, maybe they do but come up with the wrong conclusion: "Let's get a 24mp dlsr!"

Side note: birtembuk - 7DC....really?? You will be lucky to see a 7D2. Im guessing that it will be bumped down to a 70D sooner rather than later. Leaving the xD series as all Full Frame cameras only.

This is the discussion from the "7d2 rumors" thread, and I agree that leaving aps-c for the xxd while bumping the xd to full frame would be the best way to go due to the pressure from below (mirrorless and fixed-mirror evf sony). But who knows what Canon marketing guys think - except for maximizing profit, that is.

Tech specs wise Canon could keep the camera at 18MP, with an all new sensor design that is carried over into the new xxD when it comes out.

I'm actually quite happy with 18mp, too, but if they don't bump up the mp count (macro, aspect ratio change, cropping due to more loose framing when shooting action) I want to have *noticeable* less noise while keeping dr, meaning iso 3200 should look like iso 800 now and iso 400 like iso 100. That would make me upgrade.

Any rumours on the sensor Mp size for this next body in the popular APS-C range - and when it is due out?

The 450D had 12.2 Mp sensor

500D had 15.1 Mp

550D/600D have 18.0 Mp

650D - 22 or 24 Mp?

If you are shooting smallish targets requiring cropping then increasing pixel density on the same sensor must be beneficial to image quality - same size image but more pixels covering it?

Well, there are issues of spatial resolution to take into account. A 24mp sensor is going to be pushing 130lp/mm. Modern camera lenses can only achieve such resolutions at middle apertures. At f/5.6, you only have 123lp/mm due to the effects of diffraction. Anything smaller than f/5.6 will produce increasingly less spatial resolution due to greater and greater effects of diffraction. At around f/4...perhaps as low as f/3.5 or so, in most cases for professional quality glass, optical aberrations and diffraction normalize, and you reach your maximum spatial resolution. I find f/4 to be a safe bet for maximum spatial resolution, which would be 173lp/mm. At larger apertures than that, optical aberrations will quickly dominate, and affect spatial resolution more than diffraction does at f/5.6 and on, often reducing spatial resolution to as low as 30-40lp/mm wide open (depending on the lens.)

There are a very few lenses that achieve near-perfect resolution at very wide apertures, but they are less common than the average DSLR lens. Zeiss has a lens or two capable of around 400lp/mm at around what I suspect is probably f/1.5. Some of Canon and Nikon's top-end supertelephoto lenses are probably capable of nearly 173lp/mm at their maximum apertures of f/4, and for top-end telephoto lenses like 300 and 400 f/2.8's, your probably capable of a couple hundred lp/mm. Those are all extremely expensive lenses (i.e. ten thousand dollars give or take a couple thousand) that few people who are going to be using either a D3200 or 650D entry level DSLR would be using.

There are also the issues of total system spatial resolution, which is effectively a mean of the spatial resolution of each component in the system. In this case, if the sensor is capable of 120-130lp/mm, and the lens is capable of 173lp/mm at f/4, your actual total system resolution is going to be a lot lower. You can certainly keep gaining improvement by continued increase in pixel density, but your going to encounter diminishing returns. The more you push sensor spatial resolution towards 170lp/mm, the narrower and narrower the aperture range is going to be where you can actually maximize your sensors potential. You might also run into other consequences...such as images that look fairly soft @ 1:1 crop at apertures outside of that narrow band of maximum system spatial resolution (this is part of the problem the 7D with its 18mp sensor has...its 116lp/mm spatial resolution is only viable at a relatively narrow band of apertures around maybe f/3.5 to f/6.

I think Canon may be at its limits with spatial resolution until it can make some of the same sensor improvements Sony has made to their Exmor sensors. Noise is a bit of a problem at ISO 100 and 200, and SNR is a bit of a problem at higher ISO's. At the very least they will need to migrate the 1D X and 5D III sensor improvements into their APS-C manufacturing. They might also gain from the use of backlit sensor technology as well. Nikon is probably in a better position to make a 24mp APS-C sensor produce better images that don't look as soft because of the very low read noise in Sony sensors...but there is still the question of whether it will actually improve things all that much for someone who is looking for an entry-level DSLR and is less likely to be using professional glass. Entry-level glass is unlikely to achieve maximum optical spatial resolution at any aperture, diminishing the value of having a sensor capable of 125-130lp/mm.

There is limited room to grow sensor resolution in APS-C formats, and far more room to grow spatial resolution in FF formats. Outside of also producing new entry-level lenses that approach perfection at wider apertures, with significantly reduced optical aberrations as wide as f/2.8, higher pixel density won't offer nearly as much benefit as better glass.

You might also run into other consequences...such as images that look fairly soft @ 1:1 crop at apertures outside of that narrow band of maximum system spatial resolution (this is part of the problem the 7D with its 18mp sensor has...its 116lp/mm spatial resolution is only viable at a relatively narrow band of apertures around maybe f/3.5 to f/6.

Great points about Canon's aps-potential, thanks! However, I don't find f3.5-f6 very narrow, but I guess most shots are taken in this range until you're using a pro prime or shooting low-light. With a digital body and unless using Tv mode, it shouldn't be a problem to be in this range all the time to max the sensor's potential if the iso noise allows for it. Even on ff you cannot expect to shoot macro or landscape @f20 and get best iq, this is a case for focus stacking if the scene allows for it.

You might also run into other consequences...such as images that look fairly soft @ 1:1 crop at apertures outside of that narrow band of maximum system spatial resolution (this is part of the problem the 7D with its 18mp sensor has...its 116lp/mm spatial resolution is only viable at a relatively narrow band of apertures around maybe f/3.5 to f/6.

So true. I shoot landscape with a 7D and spend most of my time at f/7.1 for that very reason.